CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Mere Declaration of Civil Death without Further Relief is Very Well Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has declared that a suit for the mere declaration of civil death is maintainable even without claiming specific consequential relief, particularly in the context of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., on 28th February 2024, in the case of Smt. Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors., addresses the legal intricacies involved in declaring a person's civil death after being missing for over seven years.

Legal Point: The court delved into the interpretation of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, juxtaposing it with Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main issue revolved around whether a declaration of civil death is barred under Section 34 when no further relief is claimed.

Facts and Issues: Smt. Raeesa Bano, the appellant, sought the declaration of her husband's civil death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, as he had been missing for over 13 years. Her initial suits were dismissed by the lower courts for not including the Electricity Department, where her husband was employed, and for lack of specific consequential relief claims.

Interpretation of Legal Precedents: The court referred to various precedents, including judgments from the Bombay High Court and previous rulings of the Allahabad High Court, to assert that such a suit is maintainable.

Analysis of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act: The court observed that Section 34 does not bar a suit for the declaration of civil death but regulates suits that are of a mere declaratory nature without further relief.

Application of Section 9 of CPC: It was noted that all suits of a civil nature are maintainable before civil courts, except those expressly or impliedly barred.

Significance of Civil Death Declaration: Declaring a person's civil death was seen as substantial relief with immediate consequential effects, such as accruing benefits to legal heirs.

No Need for Specific Relief Against Electricity Department: The court highlighted that even without specific relief against the Electricity Department, the suit for declaring the death of Raeesa Bano's husband should not be dismissed as not maintainable under Section 34.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. The matter was remanded to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, for a fresh order. The Court directed a quick resolution, considering the evidence already adduced and the uncontested nature of the suit.

Date of Decision: 28th February 2024

Smt. Raeesa Bano vs. Smt. Tabassum Jahan And Ors.'

 

Latest Legal News